[Senate Hearing 109-82]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-82
PASSING THE BUCK: A REVIEW OF THE UNFUNDED MANDATES REFORM ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT,
THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE AND THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE
of the
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
----------
APRIL 14, 2005
----------
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
S. Hrg. 109-82
PASSING THE BUCK: A REVIEW OF THE UNFUNDED MANDATES REFORM ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT,
THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE AND THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE
of the
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 14, 2005
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2005
21-429 PDF
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio CARL LEVIN, Michigan
NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
TOM COBURN, Oklahoma THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island MARK DAYTON, Minnesota
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia
Michael D. Bopp, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Joyce A. Rechtschaffen, Minority Staff Director and Counsel
Amy B. Newhouse, Chief Clerk
OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE AND THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota CARL LEVIN, Michigan
TOM COBURN, Oklahoma THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island MARK DAYTON, Minnesota
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia
Andrew Richardson, Staff Director
Richard J. Kessler, Minority Staff Director
Nanci E. Langley, Minority Deputy Staff Director
Tara E. Baird, Chief Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Voinovich............................................ 1
Senator Carper............................................... 3
Senator Coleman.............................................. 14
Senator Coburn............................................... 28
Prepared statement:
Senator Lautenberg........................................... 33
WITNESSES
Thursday, April 14, 2005
Orice M. Williams, Director, Strategic Issues, U.S. Government
Accountability Office.......................................... 5
Hon. John Graham, Administrator, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget............ 7
Elizabeth Robinson, Deputy Director, Congressional Budget Office. 8
Hon. John Hurson, Delegate, Maryland House of Delegates, and
President, National Conference of State Legislatures........... 21
Hon. Colleen Landkamer, Commissioner, Blue Earth County,
Minnesota, and First Vice President, National Association of
Counties....................................................... 23
Hon. Nick Licata, City Council Member, Seattle, Washington, on
Behalf of the National League of Cities........................ 25
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
Graham, John:
Testimony.................................................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 49
Hurson, Hon. John:
Testimony.................................................... 21
Prepared statement........................................... 112
Landkamer, Hon. Colleen:
Testimony.................................................... 23
Prepared statement with an attachment........................ 119
Licata, Hon. Nick:
Testimony.................................................... 25
Prepared statement with attachments.......................... 167
Robinson, Elizabeth:
Testimony.................................................... 8
Prepared statement with an attachment........................ 54
Williams, Orice M.:
Testimony.................................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 34
Appendix
A CBO's report entitled ``A Review of CBO's Activities in 2004
Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act,'' March 2005........... 62
Survey by National Association of Counties entitled ``Unfunded
Mandates: A Snapshot Survey,'' March 2005, submitted by Ms.
Landkamer...................................................... 127
Questions and responses for the Record from:
Ms. Williams................................................. 187
Ms. Robinson................................................. 192
Mr. Hurson................................................... 196
PASSING THE BUCK: A REVIEW OF THE UNFUNDED MANDATES REFORM ACT
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Oversight of Government Management, the Federal
Workforce, and the District of Columbia Subcommittee,
of the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in
room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. George V.
Voinovich, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Voinovich, Coleman, Coburn, and Carper.
Senator Voinovich. Good morning. Thank you all for being
here today.
Today, the Subcommittee on the Oversight of Government
Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia
meets to examine a subject in which I have long been
interested. I am pleased that my colleague and former governor,
Senator Carper, is serving as Ranking Member of this
Subcommittee today. The two of us have been concerned about
this a long time.
Today's hearing entitled, Passing the Buck, A Review of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act will review UMRA's impact on
Federal, State and local governments. Over the course of my
career as a State representative, county auditor, commissioner,
lieutenant governor, and mayor I first watched the relationship
between the Federal Government, its State and local
counterparts affecting our citizens and our communities.
My experience fuels my passion for federalism. I understand
the importance of balancing the Federal Government's power with
the powers our founding fathers envisioned for the States and
that is why in 1991, as a member of the National Governors
Association, I started a long campaign with the State and local
government coalitions to curb the practice of Federal unfunded
mandates. It's really interesting that at my first governors
meeting I had this resolution on unfunded mandates, and there
was this governor who came over and put his arm around me and
said, partner, I am with you on this. That was Bill Clinton.
As Governor of Ohio I requested a first of its kind study
to examine the impact of unfunded mandates. In the introduction
to this report I noted that too often Federal mandates on the
States interfere with one of the most fundamental tasks of
government, the setting of priorities. State officials
entrusted by the voters with the responsibility to set a course
for State Government, provide services and plan for the future
find their ability to do these things constrained by Federal
directive that take legal or statutory precedence. According to
our findings, between 1992 and 1995, Ohio had unfunded mandates
of $1.7 billion.
This unique report served three important purposes in the
unfunded mandates debate. First, it illustrated the growing
mandate problem in my State.
Second, it galvanized lobbying efforts of the big seven by
providing them with evidence that unfunded mandates have a real
impact on State and local governments.
Finally, it underscored the importance of enacting Federal
unfunded mandate legislation in Congress. And thankfully, State
and local efforts to pass UMRA were supported strongly by Dirk
Kempthorne, William Roth, John Glenn, Representatives Rob
Portman, Tom Davis, and Bill Clinger.
One of the highlights of my tenure during my term as
governor was working with Congress on this vital issue. As a
matter of fact the first time I set foot on the floor of the
U.S. Senate was when UMRA was passed on March 15, 1995. I was
honored to be at the Rose Garden representing State and local
governments when President Clinton signed the legislation on
March 22, 1995 and I have that pen that he used to sign it
proudly displayed on the walls of my office today.
When I was elected to the Senate I vowed to continue
examining how the Federal Government could improve the way it
works with all levels of government to better serve the
American people. My interest in federalism and my involvement
in the passage of UMRA led me to request a two-part GAO review
of the law. The first report issued in May 2004 provided a
general overview of UMRA and analyzed the law's effectiveness.
In this review, GAO found evidence that UMRA is limiting the
number of Federal mandates, but that its procedures,
definitions, exceptions, and exclusions might still allow some
unfunded mandates to reach State and local governments.
For example, in 2001 and 2002, GAO found that only 5 of 377
statutes enacted and 9 of 122 major regulations issued
contained mandates above UMRA thresholds. However, over the
same time 43 statutes were enacted and 65 regulations issued
that might be perceived as mandates but were not identified as
such.
For example, the No Child Left Behind Act, which I voted
against because I was concerned about its cost and the policy
of federalizing education, was not identified as an unfunded
mandate because it is a condition of Federal financial
assistance. In order for States to receive funding under the No
Child Left Behind Act they must demonstrate that they are
meeting Federal requirements established for educational
standards and assessments.
However, if States can provide compelling reasons they may
opt out of the law and forgo Federal funding. Unfortunately,
this portion of the law was considered a condition of Federal
financial assistance under UMRA and, therefore, did not meet
the definition of a mandate. We call it a mandate, but under
the law it's not an unfunded mandate.
The second part which GAO is releasing this morning
explores whether changes are necessary to strengthen the law. I
would like Ms. Williams to know that the second panel of
witnesses will be listening intently as you detail your
findings this morning. I am extremely interested in hearing how
my friends in State and local government react to both of GAO's
studies and if they believe that changes in the law are
required.
As many of you know, the process of strengthening UMRA
began this year with a provision in the budget resolution. I
was pleased that the Budget Committee, Chairman Gregg added
language to increase UMRA's point of order from 50 to 60 votes.
I believe this provision will strengthen UMRA and ultimately
make it much more effective.
I would like to thank GAO for their hard work and
dedication on producing two comprehensive and informative
reports on UMRA. In addition, I want to send a warm welcome to
the rest of our witnesses, including my colleagues from State
and local governments. I look forward to discussing this issue
with you today and I now yield to my good friend, the Senator
from Delaware, Senator Carper.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER
Senator Carper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I
have a statement I'd like to submit for the record, if I may.
Senator Voinovich. Without objection.
[The prepared opening statement of Senator Carper follows:]
PREPARED OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure to sit with you here today
in this capacity to discuss an issue that's been so important to both
of us during our careers in public service--the impact unfunded Federal
mandates have on State and local governments and what we can do to
address them.
When I was governor, we were able to balance our budget every year
I was in office. We were also able to cut taxes 7 out of the 8 years I
was fortunate enough to be entrusted by the people of Delaware with
their governorship. Times were good, then, but it still angered me to
think that our job was made more difficult because of the money our
State was spending to comply with Federal mandates we had little role
in crafting and oftentimes probably didn't agree with.
Unfunded mandates are still around today and they're still a drain
on State and local resources. We'll hear testimony this morning from
witnesses on our second panel that Federal mandates, whether we think
they're meritorious or not, still have a staggering impact on budgets
in our States, counties and cities. That said, the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act that you played such a key role in bringing to fruition a
decade ago, Mr. Chairman, appears to have been a success.
While there's still work to be done, it's clearer now than it was
before the passage of the 1995 Act that Federal legislative and
regulatory actions have an impact outside of Washington, DC. Because of
the tools built into the Act, the Federal Government probably imposes
fewer, less burdensome mandates on State and local governments.
As we'll hear today, only a fraction of the legislative and
regulatory mandates examined under the Act have been deemed unfunded
from year to year. This could be because legislators and regulators
have learned their lesson and are cooperating with the officials on the
ground in State and local governments who are impacted by their
actions. It could mean we're avoiding actions that might unnecessarily
or unfairly push costs down to other levels of government. Others will
argue, however, that it's because the Act is not strong enough and is
not applied to much of the work done here in Washington from day to
day.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about how the
1995 Act has worked and what might need to be done to improve it. While
it's not possible to eliminate altogether all Federal mandates that
impose costs on State and local governments, we should see if it's
possible to get a better sense of how much a given law or regulation
will truly cost State and local governments. This should give
decisionmakers like you and me, Mr. Chairman, the information we need
to make more informed choices when developing legislation that might
impact State and local budgets.
I'd also like to learn some more about any gaps in the 1995 Act
that allow mandates that should be more heavily scrutinized to escape
our attention.
Thank you again for holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman. I look
forward to hearing from our witnesses and to working to ensure that
work Congress did a decade ago continues to be effective.
Senator Carper. Thank you.
Now to our witnesses, welcome this morning. This is one
issue that Senator Voinovich and I have been joined at the hip
on for some time. While Bill Clinton no longer has his arm
around him and saying, partner, we are working on this one
together, Senator Voinovich and I very much are partners in
this endeavor. I think the good work that he did, the
leadership that he provided more than a decade ago has not been
for naught. Some good has come from that effort.
As in most things, can we do a better job? Sure, we can.
Can we do a better job here with respect to unfunded mandates?
Sure, we can. Part of what I hope comes out of today's hearing
is a bit of a path forward, some consensus on what further
changes need to be made.
I, too, am encouraged by the change that was reflected in
the budget resolution with respect to raising a point of order
to 60 votes. I think that's a positive step. There may be some
other things that we ought to be doing and considering, and
hopefully we'll hear some of that from our panel. So we thank
you all for being here and look forward to your testimony and
the chance to have a conversation with you.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Senator Carper.
We are pleased that we have Senator Coburn from Oklahoma.
Senator, do you have a statement?
Senator Coburn. Mr. Chairman, I don't have a written
statement. I would just, first of all, apologize in advance. We
are in the midst of an executive committee meeting in Judiciary
so I'll be in and out and intermit with my attendance. I am
very appreciative that you're holding this hearing. I believe
there are still way too many mandates coming out of Washington
for States and local communities, and many of them, although we
call them funded, they're not. So there is a difference between
an unfunded mandate and an underfunded mandate, and the way we
are getting around the law today is underfunding the mandates.
So I look forward to studying this report and also the
testimony of your witnesses today, and thank you for holding
the hearing.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much.
We do have two excellent panels today and I look forward to
a good discussion. All witnesses' statements will be entered
into the record in their entirety and I'd appreciate it if you
would limit your remarks to 5 minutes.
It's the custom of the Subcommittee to require swearing in
our witnesses and if you will stand, and those from the local
governments stand, I'll swear you in.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Senator Voinovich. Let the record show that all of the
witnesses answered in the affirmative. Our first panel of
witnesses, Orice Williams is Director of Strategic Issues at
the Government Accountability Office and served as the project
leader on the unfunded mandate report. We are so glad that
you're here, and GAO did a super job, as they always do.
Dr. Graham is the Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulator Affairs at the Office of Budget and
Management. Dr. Graham, welcome back to this Subcommittee. We
haven't seen you for some time. We do remember the hearings on
your nomination. There was some controversy about them and I
told my colleagues that you would be the best OIRA director
that we could get and you've done an outstanding job over there
of looking after regulations in the Federal Government. I was
pleased that you're there.
Mr. Graham. Thank you, sir.
Senator Voinovich. In my opinion, you have really thrown
the ball down the middle. I've watched some of the decisions
you've made and I want to congratulate you. I think you're
really doing the job that we expect you to do.
Dr. Elizabeth Robinson is the Deputy Director of CBO. I
want to thank CBO for the outstanding job that you have done in
providing mandate statements. It's a lot of work. I think
you've got four or five people over there that work on it on a
continuing basis. They're here today. I understand that the
team leader is Terri Gullo, and I want to thank you, Terri, for
your leadership. This issue that may not seem important to some
people but I can tell you it's really important to the local
government officials that are here and local government
representatives throughout the United States.
We'll start out with Ms. Williams.
TESTIMONY OF ORICE M. WILLIAMS,\1\ DIRECTOR, STRATEGIC ISSUES,
U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Ms. Williams. Mr. Chairman, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to participate in
today's hearing to discuss the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995, commonly known as UMRA. My statement this morning focuses
on two reports issued by GAO in the past year at your request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Williams appears in the Appendix
on page 00.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, in May 2004 we issued a report that identified a
number of issues surrounding the gap between Federal mandates
under the Act and those that may be viewed as mandates by
affected parties. As a follow-up to that report you asked that
we obtain the views of a diverse group of parties knowledgeable
about UMRA as well as Federal mandates.
In summary, we found that identifying and analyzing Federal
mandates is a complex process under UMRA. This is due primarily
to the Act's various definitions, exceptions, and exclusions.
In 2001 and 2002, the period covered by our review, as you
mentioned only 5 of the 377 statutes enacted and 9 of 122 major
or economically significant final rules issued were identified
as containing Federal mandates at or above UMRA's thresholds.
Of these, only one final rule contained an intergovernmental
mandate.
Despite the application of UMRA and the paucity of actions
identified as mandates under the Act, we found other provisions
of statutes and rules that did not trigger UMRA requirements,
but appear to have potential financial impacts similar to those
identified as containing Federal mandates at or above UMRA
thresholds. As a result, many were viewed as unfunded or
underfunded mandates by affected parties.
Building on those findings, as requested, we asked a
diverse group of parties from academia, business, Federal
agencies, public interest advocacy groups, and State and local
governments to share their views about strengths and weaknesses
of UMRA and Federal mandates. Two issues quickly emerged.
First, UMRA's coverage was the first issue cited across
sectors. The vast majority saw UMRA's coverage as a weakness of
the Act because it excludes many potentially significant
actions from the scrutiny of UMRA. Most offered ways that the
Act's coverage could be expanded. However, a few disagreed,
believing the Act should, in fact, be kept narrow.
Second, parties across the sectors also raised a number of
issues concerning the lack of evaluation and research of
mandates in general. They felt more and better retrospective
analysis would result in better information about the costs and
benefits of mandates and could potentially improve prospective
analysis.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to reiterate our
findings and share a few observations.
First, of the 100-plus comments provided, almost one-third
pointed out the strengths of UMRA, and even its harshest
critics did not suggest that the Act be repealed.
Second, and not surprisingly, coverage continues to be an
issue in most sectors. To the extent that UMRA plays a role in
shining a light on unfunded mandates, there is some evidence
that UMRA has resulted in fewer legislative mandates at or
above UMRA's thresholds. Although UMRA does not ban the
imposition of unfunded mandates, broadening coverage would
result in more information about a wider range of Federal
actions, but not necessarily prevent them.
Third, as I mentioned at the onset, retrospective analysis
emerged as a key issue when discussing Federal mandates. We
heard repeatedly about the need for various types of analysis
to evaluate existing programs, but also as a tool to improve
the design and prospective analysis of future actions.
Finally, as we move forward in an environment of
constrained fiscal resources, the issue of unfunded mandates
raises broader questions about the assignment of fiscal
responsibilities within our Federal system. Most major domestic
programs, costs, and administrative responsibilities are
shared. Therefore, part of this public policy debate includes a
re-examination of the Federal Government's role in our system,
and a need to sort out how responsibilities for these types of
programs should be financed in the future. If left unchecked,
unfunded mandates can weaken accountability and remove
constraints on decisions by separating the enactment of benefit
programs from the responsibility of having to pay for these
programs. Likewise, 100 percent Federal financing of
intergovernmental programs can pervert fiscal incentives
necessary to ensure proper stewardship at the State and local
level for shared programs.
This concludes my oral statement and I would be happy to
answer any questions.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Ms. Williams. Dr. Graham.
TESTIMONY OF HON. JOHN GRAHAM,\1\ ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF
INFORMATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND
BUDGET
Mr. Graham. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Carper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Graham appears in the Appendix on
page 00.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you know, an important reason for the enactment of the
Unfunded Mandates Act was to ensure that Congress and the
Executive Branch better understood and considered the impact of
laws and regulations on our intergovernmental partners and on
the private sector before these laws and regulations were
enacted. The Administration firmly supports the principles on
this Act and we have been working to increase the opportunities
for our intergovernmental partners to participate fully in the
regulatory process.
Let me give you some feel how this Administration has
compared to previous administrations on the rate of growth in
unfunded mandates. I guess it's the story of Washington, DC,
when you talk about progress you only talk about rates of
growth in things. You never actually reduce anything. But,
nonetheless, that's the situation we are in.
When OMB began to keep records in 1981 we tracked major
rules on State and local governments and the private sector.
During that 24-year period from 1981 to 2004, the average
annual growth rate in these major rules was about $5 billion
per year on top of the existing several hundred billion dollars
a year in regulatory costs. During the President's first term
we reduced that rate of growth to under $2 billion per year, or
about 68 percent lower than the 24-year average. These
statistics, while they're not in my written statement, are in
the annual report to Congress which we have provided you under
the Regulatory Right-to-Know Act.
So the good news is that we are slowing the growth rate or
unfunded mandates. The bad news is we haven't really yet been
effective of that getting at the existing base of these
unfunded mandates.
Let me conclude with a few remarks about my experience in
the Executive Branch dealing with regulatory agencies on the
subject of what are the conceptual solutions to a proposal for
an unfunded mandate. Let's remember that they're often times
very exciting and noble ideas that are behind unfunded mandates
even though they don't have any funding behind them.
The first potential conceptual solution to that problem is
to fund the unfunded mandate at the Federal level. Let me
assure you that my budget colleagues at OMB hearing me even
utter that sentence would be shuddering about the prospect of
all of that Federal spending. But I think we recognize that
conceptually this is one of the possible solutions to the
problem. It needs to be examined, and clearly it needs to be
examined in the context of an overall fiscal approach to the
Federal Government.
A second conceptual response to the proposal for an
unfunded mandate is to reject the unfunded mandate and simply
allow the State and local governments or the private sector to
handle the issue as they see appropriate. We, at OMB, look at
that option, whenever possible, as a potential solution.
The third solution, and my experience, practically speaking
it tends to be the most effective, is to find more cost-
effective ways or less costly ways of achieving the purpose of
the unfunded mandate than were originally contemplated in the
proposal. Allowing, for example, State and local governments to
have flexibility to consider less costly ways of achieving
whatever the objective may be, whether it be in environment,
whether it be in education and so forth.
Those, I think, conceptually are the three solutions we
have when we have a proposal for an unfunded mandate, and I
think that when you strip away all of the details that's what
it boils down to. So I look forward to the discussion of the
Subcommittee and I have my written statement with some details.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Dr. Graham. Dr. Robinson.
TESTIMONY OF ELIZABETH ROBINSON,\1\ DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
Ms. Robinson. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Mr.
Carper. I am very glad to be here today to discuss the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act and CBO's role in implementing parts of the
Act. To provide some context, CBO has now about 10 years of
experience in implementing the Act. During that time we have
transmitted over 5,200 reviews of specific pieces of
legislation, and under the definitions in the Act, about 12
percent of those found mandates on States and localities, and
14 percent found such mandates on the private sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Robinson appears in the Appendix
on page 00.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now as you know, UMRA not only requires that we identify
mandates but that we estimate their cost and compare those
costs to the thresholds that are established in the Act. A much
smaller universe of the mandates we see actually have costs
higher than those thresholds. Again, for the total universe of
5,200 only about 1 percent had mandates on States and
localities, as defined in the Act, with costs above the
threshold, and about 3 percent private sector mandates with
costs above the threshold.
At the same time, we can't always estimate the size of
these mandates, especially if there are many more steps in the
process that have to happen after the mandate is enacted;
regulations promulgated by the Executive Branch or other
things. So UMRA also requires that if we say we can't estimate
the cost, we also explain why. A similar number of bills to
those that actually contain mandates with costs over the
threshold have not been estimable by CBO at the time the
legislation was being considered by the Congress.
Also, as bills are considered by the Congress, we find that
only about a third of those where we identify mandates with
costs over the thresholds, I guess about 20 percent on States
and localities and about a third on the private sector,
actually get enacted into law. That's not surprising to us
actually because during the process members and their staff are
very interested in the impacts of their legislation on States,
localities, and the private sector. They work with us on
specific provisions. They ask us for whatever information we
can give them. They then respond; for example, the House has
brought up UMRA points of order and committees have modified
mandates on the Floor and sometimes they have provided funding
as well to cover the cost of the mandate.
So in a very broad brush way and in terms of procedure, the
Act has been implemented fairly smoothly over the last 10
years. But during that time there's been a lot of concern about
the definitions in the Act, whether or not they're providing
the information that policymakers need as they're going through
the legislative process to adequately assess what the impact of
the legislation is going to be.
GAO has already very ably mentioned that one of the biggest
problems concerns legislation that would change conditions for
existing grant programs. When a State is already participating
in a grant program and the conditions are changed, and if those
conditions cause them to spend more money, it can feel like a
mandate. It may not be a mandate under UMRA but it can feel
like a mandate. We hear that often and try to work with staff
to understand how UMRA defines mandate as those kinds of bills
go through the process.
At a much smaller level, a more technical level, there are
some aspects of the definitions in UMRA that CBO would
appreciate some legislative clarification on. We have mentioned
these as they come up in the various statements that we put
forward, but there are two central questions that we have had
to face over the years.
One question is that if the bill extends an existing
mandate, is that actually a new mandate that then should be
considered under the procedures of UMRA?
The second is, what happens if a bill does not itself
create a mandate but, by its actions, it triggers spending
under other existing mandates? Should that bill be considered
under UMRA as containing a mandate?
Senator Carper. Would you say that again?
Ms. Robinson. If you have a bill that, for instance, sites
a facility in a specific area and that's all it does, but that
triggers spending on the part of the States in order to provide
transportation going there under Federal regulation, maybe
environmental regulations, and those costs exceed the
threshold, does that bill then contain a mandate? Those
mandates were created in previous bills, but the siting of a
facility would trigger additional spending. So is that a
mandate under UMRA?
We think it's very timely that now, after 10 years and a
lot of experience implementing UMRA, that the Subcommittee
reconsider this piece of legislation. There have been very few
changes to the law over the last 10 years and we look forward
to working with the Subcommittee to consider issues as they
come up. Thank you.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much.
We are going to have rounds of questions of 6 minutes. The
first question I have is for all of the witnesses. In the
second report, GAO noted that many stakeholders would like a
retrospective evaluation of mandates to ensure they were
achieving their intended goals and a better measure of the
actual costs by non-Federal entities. Do you believe that this
process would help measure the actual cost of mandates? If so,
who should be responsible for conducting such an evaluation for
both laws and regulations?
Mr. Graham. Let me start by just giving you, Senator, some
ballpark and sobering numbers on that subject. Since OMB began
to keep records in 1981--so that includes some of the pre-UMRA
period, OMB has cleared 20,000 Federal regulations.
Senator Voinovich. How many?
Mr. Graham. Twenty thousand. Most of those, to the best of
our knowledge, have never been re-examined to determine how
much they actually cost or what their effective was. We could
get you those same numbers for the period in the 1990's of the
UMRA period.
The question of who should perform those evaluations, I
think, is a difficult one. On the one hand, the agencies
themselves might seem to be a logical place to go for an
evaluation. But then one could argue that maybe they're not in
the most objective position to evaluate the regulations that
have promulgated. Some would say OMB should be involved in that
activity, but I can assure you some would say that we are not
the most objective people to evaluate those.
So, I think one thing that needs to be given thought to is
the question of where that most objective evaluation of those
would come from. I think in our report to Congress we have
actually asked for public comment on about 15 independent
academic studies that have been done of the evaluation of the
costs and benefits of previous regulations, and in the process
we'll be learning more about the subject about how good this
literature is in its technical quality and how it can be
expanded in the future.
Ms. Williams. Just to expand on that. In terms of looking
at retrospective analysis, two things were made very clear to
us. One, when conducting this type of analysis it's important
to look at the costs that were estimated versus the actual
costs as well as the benefits. And two, to perform this type of
analysis to inform prospective analysis. I think in terms of
the agencies having a role, to the extent that the agencies
perform this type of analysis it may actually strengthen their
ability to perform analysis going forward in the future.
Senator Voinovich. Dr. Robinson.
Ms. Robinson. CBO is always supportive of more analysis. We
would love to have more analysis on how these mandates have
turned out. But we also have a number of questions that, I
think, would have to be answered in that kind of retrospective
review.
One is, what would the States and localities have done
otherwise? Many mandates that we see going through require for
the majority of States something that some States have already
embarked upon. Would it be that in the intervening period after
the mandate is enacted other States would not have taken this
up in the absence of the Federal mandate? So trying to
determine the counterfactual, what is it that you're measuring
against, is something that I think we'd need to think hard
about when we are quantifying these costs.
Senator Voinovich. Dr. Graham, you look at these
regulations and come back and try to define whether or not
they're an unfunded mandate. Do you just take all your
regulations and go back and look at them and see what their
cost is afterwards? In other words, Congress passes a law
requiring agencies to issue regulations and there's an estimate
of what that regulation is going to cost, so you do that. But
so often after it has passed the cost skyrockets. Is there any
way that those kinds of regulations are flagged after the fact?
Mr. Graham. We do provide an opportunity, Senator, each
year through OMB's report to Congress on regulation which was
developed through the Regulatory Right-to-Know Act, which I
know you supported with Senator Thompson when it was passed.
What that report does each year is it provides the public,
including State and local governments, an opportunity to
suggest specific regulations that they believe are more costly
than they were originally thought, or are outmoded, or don't in
fact provide benefits.
That opportunity has been available in 3 of the first 4
years of this Administration. We have received a substantial
number of comments. Most of them, however, are from the private
sector groups that are affected by unfunded mandates. We have
had fewer comments from our State and local intergovernmental
partners.
Senator Voinovich. I have been concerned about the roles
and regulations issued by the Environmental Protection Agency
and the impact they have on local communities. In many
instances, the cost of them is very large, and in so many
instances there is no flexibility in terms of how long it would
take to comply with the mandate.
For example, I've got one case of the city of Akron, Ohio
has agreed to comply with the provisions in terms of storm flow
overflow. It's very expensive and they want to implement it
over 30 years and the EPA says they must do it in 15 years.
I've asked EPA to look and see why something can't be done
about that and their attitude is, that's just the way it is.
From my perspective, it's an unfunded mandate, and we keep
cutting back the amount of money made available to State and
local governments for a lot of these things that are being
mandated and there doesn't seem to be any fairness.
In other words, if we are not going to provide the
funding--we start out providing the funding and then we keep
ratcheting back what we are providing, that increases the cost
to the local governments, but there is no consideration given
to that impact or the time it takes to get the job done. It
seems to me that there are a lot of areas like that. We really
should look at the regulations that are turning into unfunded
mandates for local governments because the feds have just
pulled back on funding them.
For example--I'll finish on this--the President has
recommended eliminating approximately 150 programs. Have you
examined those programs set for elimination? In effect we
eliminated funding but the requirement to fulfill the Federal
law still exists, but now State and local governments are going
to have to pick up the tab.
Mr. Graham. As I mentioned in by oral remarks, there are
three solutions to an unfunded mandate. Fund it, remove the
mandate, or find less costly alternatives for addressing the
objective, like your example of a 30-year phase-in period
rather than 15 years. Those are the only three possible
solutions that we have been able to find when an unfunded
mandate is proposed, and all of them are painful in some ways.
As a practical matter, most of the progress we make at OIRA on
these issues is in the third category, let's be more creative
about finding ways to provide flexibility so people can achieve
the objective at lower cost. That tends to be, at a practical
level, the most successful approach.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you. Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Thank you. Again, our thanks for your
testimony today. I just want to come back and revisit some of
what you've already said just to help me synthesize it in my
mind. Is the consensus that the effect of the 1995 bill has
generally been a positive one in terms of, if not reducing
unfunded mandates, at least reducing the growth of those
unfunded mandates? How would you all characterize the
effectiveness of the bill?
Ms. Williams. In terms of the parties we spoke with there
were definitely sectors that held that sentiment, that it was
definitely a step in the right direction and it has had some
impact on the growth of unfunded mandates, especially on the
legislative side.
Senator Carper. When you say especially on the legislative
side, you're talking legislation as opposed to regulatory
unfunded mandates?
Ms. Williams. Correct, yes.
Senator Carper. Dr. Graham.
Mr. Graham. Just to elaborate, and keep in mind that the
analytic requirements that were put in UMRA for regulations on
the Executive Branch were similar to Executive Order
requirements that were already in place prior to UMRA. So the
big effect was on the legislative side, as the previous answer
indicated.
I think your summary of it is a good one. I would say there
has been progress in slowing the growth in new unfunded
mandates. However, a weakness in our situation is that we
haven't been able to get at very effectively that sea of
existing unfunded mandates that are already out there, and
figuring out a way to evaluate whether they're still effective,
whether there are more cost-effective ways to address those
issues. That's a much bigger challenge.
Senator Carper. Dr. Robinson, same question.
Ms. Robinson. In terms of the analytical requirements and
procedures that CBO helps to implement, people are very
interested in it; members and staff. They're consuming that
information. They're paying attention to it. They find it
useful within the limits of the Act itself. So if that's a
measure, that they are considering the information as
legislation goes forward and getting the kinds of responses
they need, then yes, I think it has helped quite a lot.
Senator Carper. The second question would be, if you're
sitting up here instead of where you're sitting, what would you
do, either to work further on the legislative mandates, or to
work on the regulatory mandates? If you were a U.S. Senator, or
if you were a member of this Subcommittee, what would you do?
Ms. Williams. I think based on the conversations we had
with the parties from the various sectors, one of the
interesting issues that emerged, and it isn't really a
surprising one, is the issue of coverage. You can ask about the
number of unfunded mandates, or the number of mandates at or
above UMRA's thresholds and the numbers are relatively small.
But when you talk to parties affected by mandates that go
beyond those identified in UMRA the numbers are much larger. So
if you look at the issue of coverage and where the bar is, it
raises issues about whether or not UMRA actually covers all
actions that affected parties view as unfunded or underfunded
mandates.
Senator Carper. So let me just ask my question again. What
would you do?
Ms. Williams. I think in terms of----
Senator Carper. There's no right or wrong answers here. I
just want to know, what would you do?
Ms. Williams. I think this is the point. After 10 years of
experience, now's the time to revisit some of the provisions of
UMRA and ask if all of the exclusions and exemptions still make
sense in today's environment, and bring parties from the
sectors that we spoke with to the table to get their input on
whether or not all of them still need to be in place today. So
that's where I would start if I were in your shoes.
Senator Carper. Thank you. Dr. Graham.
Mr. Graham. I think I would look to the question of how
valid are the cost estimates that are made on unfunded mandates
at the time members must vote on them or we at OMB must rule on
them. We now have 10 years of experience to look at the cost
estimates that were made before these mandates were imposed.
Let's find out exactly how much they actually did cost, how
many times was it greater than we thought, how many times was
it less than we thought. As an analyst my hope is a lot of
times we get that answer roughly right. But we need to know the
answer to that question to know how much confidence we should
put behind these estimates of the cost of unfunded mandates,
and I think it would be useful if you could stimulate that work
to be done.
Senator Carper. Thank you. Dr. Robinson.
Ms. Robinson. I'd like to start out with saying that the
organic Act for CBO actually prohibits me from telling you what
I would do if I were a Senator. So with that in mind and me
wanting to keep my job, one thing I would definitely consider
is the informational side of the Act--the information in the
legislative process is always king in terms of affecting things
and having them move forward. There might be more information
out there on other types of legislative vehicles like
expansions of requirements under existing grant programs.
I would mention, though, that these additional classes of
legislation would bring in a lot more bills. If we were to try
to estimate the costs of new conditions on existing grant
programs for States and localities it would more than double
the bills for which we would have to do a cost estimate. So I
might also think about the resources available to CBO for doing
this. These changes are actually very significant in terms of
the number of bills that would be affected and how important it
is to Congress to consider this kind of information for all
bills moving forward.
Senator Carper. Thanks. My time has just expired.
Senator Voinovich. Senator Coleman is here with us. Senator
Coleman, I think that during your term as mayor of St. Paul,
the Unfunded Mandates Relief legislation was passed. One of the
reasons why we were successful in getting it passed is that we
got terrific support from all of the State and local government
groups, and it was on a bipartisan basis. It was like a tide
that just rolled through this place and we got it done. So we
are glad that you're here today.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLEMAN
Senator Coleman. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I don't think it's
by accident that the three of us sitting up here are all former
local elected officials; two former mayors and two former
governors. You notice there's only three people here, but there
are two former mayors and two former governors.
I have a statement that I would like entered into the
record.
Senator Voinovich. Without objection.
[The prepared opening statement of Senator Coleman
follows:]
PREPARED OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLEMAN
I want to thank Chairman Voinovich and Senator Akaka for holding
this important hearing to review the Unfunded Mandated Reform Act. I
also want to take a moment and welcome a constituent of mine from Blue
Earth County, Commissioner Colleen Landkamer, who will be testifying on
the second panel today. Commissioner Landkamer is First Vice President
of the National Association of Counties and has served as Commissioner
of Blue Earth County since 1988. And, if anyone wants to know where
Blue Earth County is, you can go back and watch Little House on the
Prairie reruns and when Laura Ingalls Wilder visited Mankato, she was
in Blue Earth County. Commissioner Landkamer, I want to thank you for
your service and I look forward to hearing your testimony today.
Unfunded mandates have been around for as long as I can remember
and created real challenges for Saint Paul when I was mayor. When I
came to Washington, I wanted to bring my experiences from the bottom of
the political food chain to committee hearings like this to talk about
how unfunded mandates can hamstring local leaders who are just trying
to get things done. I can remember being told when I was mayor that
doing business with the city could easily add 20 percent to the cost of
a project. Well 20 percent on five houses and you have built another
house. I was also told that adding $1 of Federal money in an activity
can trigger thousands of dollars worth of additional requirements. The
result when I was mayor was that some great ideas never got realized
because unfunded mandates drove folks away from doing business with us.
I also remember projects that were almost never realized because of
the requirements imposed by Federal mandates that were necessary to
comply with to receive Federal funding. Anyone that has worked with
local government knows that communities tend to have scarce resources
and opting out of a Federal program is often not a solution, nor an
option. That leads to cities putting up with one size fits all
requirements in order to receive funding.
Earlier this year, I was proud to introduce an amendment to the
Senate budget resolution, which was approved, to prevent cuts to the
Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG). I bring this up
because this program is based on the idea that we should not have 1,500
command and control programs run out of Washington trying to
micromanage the needs of communities. Instead through CDBG, we help
communities meet those needs and priorities through one block grant.
With all the unfunded mandates coming down from Washington, CDBG is one
way we actually help communities across the country meet some very
critical priorities without hampering local leaders.
As Minnesota's Mayor in Washington, I still believe that government
is beholden to the people. That individuals, with the help of their
local representatives, can plan their lives better than bureaucrats in
some distant capital. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 was a
good first step towards making sure Congress adequately appropriated
funds for mandates imposed on local governments. However, we still have
a lot more work to do on this issue. I am pleased that the Senate
budget resolution raised the threshold to overcome an unfunded mandates
point of order from a simple majority to 60 votes. It still remains to
be seen whether this will survive in Conference but it is something I
hope to get feedback on today. I look forward to hearing the testimony
of our panelists and their thoughts on what provisions of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act have worked and what needs to be changed.
Senator Coleman. I will note that the second panel contains
a friend of mine, Commissioner of Blue Earth County, which if
you go back and watch Little House on the Prairie and when
Laura Ingalls Wilder visited Mankato, she was in Blue Earth
County. So this is the heart of America there, and I want to
thank Commissioner Landkamer for her service and look forward
to her testimony.
I just have two observations. One, this really is for those
local leaders, it's an important issue. I always tell people
you never forget when you're at the bottom of the political
food chain. The feds tell the State, and the State tells the
county and the cities, and then our taxpayers are the ones who
have to deal with it, and we hear about it. So I think this was
important legislation.
The areas, I just met yesterday with a group of home
builders in Minnesota and they raised the issue of stormwater
regulations. It's fascinating, because they actually talked
about the EPA passing on the enforcement to folks at county,
State, and city level and they've got various folks now that
they know how to respond to in dealing with that, and that
becomes particularly frustrating for them.
I just want to go back, if I can, to Dr. Graham. The
question that my colleague, Senator Carper, asked about what
would you do, your response talked about the validity of cost
estimates. But in the earlier part of your testimony, one of
the things you noted, which has been my observation, is that we
have made progress in slowing up the growth of new unfunded
mandates but we still have this underlying body of things out
there that we have to deal with.
Could I ask you to respond to the question that Senator
Carper asked about what would you do, specifically focusing on
that earlier response where you said, we have still got this
challenge with that body of mandates that are out there that
are still having some impact? What would you do if you were
sitting up here dealing with that specific issue?
Mr. Graham. I am not sure, because we at OMB are humbled by
the challenge of the sea of existing Federal regulations and
unfunded mandates that are out there and have accumulated over
the years. I mentioned, I think before you arrived, that since
1981 when OMB began to keep records there have been over
110,000 new Federal regulations adopted by all Federal
agencies. Twenty-thousand of those we at OMB reviewed and
cleared. And of those, over 1,100 were estimated to cost the
economy over $100 million per year at the time that they were
enacted.
To the best of our knowledge, nobody has ever looked back
at most of these regulations to determine what they actually
cost, what their benefits were, or whether they could be
accomplished in a better way. And we with two dozen employees
in the office I work in at OMB are obviously in no position to
review all of these tens of thousands of regulations. In this
Administration we have taken one modest step which is, for
example, we asked the public to nominate specific rules for
revision. We are working right now, for example, on 76 of them
that affect the manufacturing sector of the economy.
Senator Coleman. That's very helpful and it goes back to
Ms. Williams' comment about engaging again in a conversation
with some of the folks who are impacted and perhaps they can
provide us with more focus. Clearly your testimony lays out the
daunting nature of the task, but perhaps if we can--what I am
hearing is with a little focus we can begin to make some
headway, though certainly not clearing the table. So I
appreciate that.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for having this hearing.
This is a very important issue to folks in local government and
we are all impacted by it so I look forward to good things
coming out of this as we continue to address this issue. Thank
you.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much. I would like to
find out what kind of procedures are in place. When UMRA
passed, we established procedures requiring Federal agencies to
consult with State and local governments to get their input on
what impact it would have on State and local governments. Dr.
Graham, is there some kind of procedure that is in each
department that you monitor to make sure that they do try to
get input from State and local government folks when they are
doing these regulations?
And second of all, is there consultation at all with the
private sector on these regulations, to get their impression
and get into the issue that you talked about, alternatives that
are more reasonable?
Mr. Graham. Yes. Mr. Chairman, we have an annual report to
Congress on the Unfunded Mandates Act that includes a summary
of the consultation activities that different Federal agencies
are undertaking to make sure that State and local governments
have an opportunity to interact, and my characterization of
that report is that there are some really good examples of
consultation that are documented in that report at the
Department of Education, the Environmental Protection Agency
and so forth, but I think it would be fair to say that those
best practices are not necessarily uniform across the Federal
Government or across any particular agency. We oftentimes, at
OMB, hear concerns on a particular regulation, that either the
State and local governments had not been adequately consulted
or the private sector had not been adequately consulted.
That is why we at OMB have an open-door policy for outside
groups to come in and talk to us about their concerns about
regulations and unfunded mandates.
Senator Voinovich. I recall that when I was governor we
lobbied and had passed a provision dealing with the Clean Water
Act that basically said that you had to use cost benefit
analysis and regulations in regard to that Act at the time. We
were requiring local governments every 3 years to take on 25
new pollutants to check to see whether or not they were in
their water or not, and we required them to do the most
advanced technology in terms of cleaning water. We went to work
on that. Are you familiar with what I am talking about?
Mr. Graham. Generally. I do not know the specific example
though.
Senator Voinovich. I ask because, at the time we were
interested in including a cost benefit analysis, peer review
and good science, and then you would then also be required to
look at alternatives. So that is the Clean Water Act.
When I came to Congress, my first 2 years here I tried to
get legislation passed that did the same thing with the Clean
Air Act. Unfortunately, so many members mistakenly thought that
I was trying to eviscerate the Clean Air Act, and we never got
back to it.
I would really like you to know whether the amendments that
we made in the Clean Water Act have made it any different in
terms of their regulations as contrasted to legislation dealing
with the Clean Air Act. Could you look into that for me?
Mr. Graham. Yes, sir. I am familiar under the Safe Drinking
Water Act, which was passed--the amendments of 1996, where
there were cost benefit and sound science requirements.
Senator Voinovich. Yes. I mischaracterized that.
Mr. Graham. I just wanted to make sure we----
Senator Voinovich. That is exactly what I am talking about,
yes.
Mr. Graham [continuing]. Were talking about the same
provisions.
Senator Voinovich. Yes.
Mr. Graham. And I want you to know that we believe they
have made a significant difference, and in fact, in this
Administration we have taken the basic approach that was in the
Safe Drinking Water Act amendments on cost benefit and sound
science, and incorporated it in government wide guidance under
the Information Quality Act, where we require all Federal
agencies, regardless of whether it is an environmental
regulation or a labor regulation, to have the replicable
science and an appropriate peer review process on that science.
And we already have requirements in executive order to look at
alternatives, less costly alternatives. Quite frankly, that is
the bread and butter of the work of the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs.
But having said that, I want to emphasize the fact that if
Congress, when they pass a statute like the Clean Air Act, says
that alternatives will not be considered or costs will not be
considered, that really limits the ability of the Executive
Branch to bring in the kind of tools you are talking about.
Senator Voinovich. I would like to really look at what you
have done with the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act, and to
ascertain whether or not as a result of the cost benefit
provisions and the other provisions that I mentioned, that
serious damage has been done to the safe drinking water in our
country, because I really think that at this stage of the game
we should review and look at our Clean Air legislation in terms
of cost benefit.
For example, I was just blown away when I met with the head
of our EPA about the new requirements under the ambient air
standards that were litigated. I will finish on this note. He
basically told me--you would be interested in this, Senator
Carper, because you and I have been working on this issue--he
said that in spite of if we pass Clear Skies, the care rule and
the other rules, that all of the businesses in my State that
are in counties that are not complying with the current rules,
that all of the businesses there are going to, in terms of if
there is any new emissions, are going to have the install
enormous--spent an enormous amount of money installing those
particular things to do with their emissions, as they move
toward compliance with the ambient air standards. And that in
many instances, some of the counties would absolutely not be
able to comply with that within a 5-year period, or if they
did, the cost would just be astronomical.
I was really shocked at that because I got the impression
that if we passed Clear Skies and the new regulations dealing
with diesel fuel, that these counties would be considered to be
in compliance with, in an attainment because the big burden was
going to be put on the utilities, and we were cleaning up our
diesel gasoline. So this thing is going to cost a lot of money.
I want to tell your State and local government folks out here,
you have no idea what this is going to do in terms of the
counties that you represent that are not achieving these
ambient air standards.
Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Thank you. A couple of questions if I could
of Ms. Williams, please. There are a number of ways that we
could broaden the 1995 Act's coverage to include more laws or
more regulations that are considered here in Washington on a
day-to-day basis. Among those that you have talked to, what
approaches were most popular?
Ms. Williams. They really broke out into two categories.
One would be the provisions that deal with procedural changes,
acts that are included, for example, in appropriations bills or
rules that are issued by independent agencies. Under UMRA those
are currently excluded from UMRA coverage. So those are two
examples of procedural changes that could be made to broaden
coverage under UMRA.
The parties also mentioned looking at some of the
definitions in UMRA and revisiting certain specific exclusions.
I think CBO mentioned conditions of Federal financial
assistance as one possible area that could be looked at that is
an exclusion under UMRA that could be revisited.
Senator Carper. You point out in your report that some
stakeholders you spoke to actually like the narrow scope of the
bill, the Act?
Ms. Williams. Yes.
Senator Carper. And do not favor broadening it. What
reasons did they give for continuing with the current limits
that are placed on these kinds of laws and regulations?
Ms. Williams. They varied. Some parties felt that the
strength of UMRA in its narrow coverage is that it does not try
to be more than it needs to be. Some also felt that because the
scope is narrow, when a provision does meet the threshold for a
Federal mandate under UMRA it results in a significant red
flag, so when this happens it is a big enough issue that people
take notice and they are willing to negotiate and make
adjustments. If the Act is broadened, then it may decrease the
effectiveness of the red flag if more red flags are constantly
going up.
Senator Carper. Dr. Robinson, my question to you would be
how often do the enforcement mechanisms that are part of the
1995 Act ever encourage the lawmakers, guys like us, to modify
our proposals? That is the first part of the question. And
second, would this change if they were strengthened in some
way?
Ms. Robinson. Well, the first part of your question is
actually pretty hard to quantify because although we
transmitted 5,200 formal estimates, many of those were preceded
by informal consultations with members and their staff asking
whether or not their specific provision was going to cause a
mandate. And we have seen----
Senator Carper. Did the lawmakers initiate those inquiries
or their staffs?
Ms. Robinson. Yes. They will bring the legislation to us,
the draft legislation to us, and then we have to work with it.
Senator Carper. And that occurs in you say the majority of
cases?
Ms. Robinson. No, I would not say the majority of cases,
but I would say that before we actually do an estimate of a
major bill, we oftentimes have done an informal consultation
and in terms of time, effort, and feedback that we give to
committees that work often swamps the final estimates when we
are looking at the formal legislation. And we see routinely
that members are concerned that when we raise a flag, they want
to approach that and consider whether or not it is worth it in
their whole scheme of getting the legislation through.
The House has brought up points of order in its
considerations. The Senate has considered bringing up points of
order, but I don't think it ever actually has. So that is an
example where there was a flag raised and before there was even
a vote there were negotiations to avoid imposing a mandate. So,
yes, I think that we do see quite a lot of legislative movement
around these issues.
And then your second question was?
Senator Carper. Would this change if these mechanisms were
strengthened in any way?
Ms. Robinson. I think that is hard to tell. I think that
there is a benefit of having a rigorous definition that people
understand so that they understand across bills what
``mandate'' means. If that were to be expanded in a number of
the ways GAO has talked about and people became used to that
information and could use it, I think that the more information
routinely is better. The more estimates that people can
understand and compare to other versions of bills that are
addressing the same issue, the better. Analysis like that does
help.
So in terms of the effectiveness and the red flags, it is a
little hard to--it is one of these things like estimating cost
under UMRA. It is like saying, OK, what is actually going to
happen 5 years from now once the new regime is in place, and
how are people going to be acting then?
I do firmly believe, however, that more information is
better.
Senator Carper. Thanks.
Dr. Graham mentioned there are three solutions I think to
the unfunded mandate dilemma. And first, he said fund them,
which could get to be expensive; and second, I think he said
reject the unfunded mandates. I think the third he said was
find less costly ways of achieving the purpose or the objective
of the unfunded mandates. Is that a fair characterization?
Mr. Graham. Yes, sir.
Senator Carper. Let me just ask Dr. Robinson and Ms.
Williams, is that pretty much the universe of alternatives that
we face? Are there others that we ought to be mindful of?
Ms. Williams. I think if you look at the information we
collected from the parties, they generally more or less break
out into those broad categories, and I think all of them need
to be on the table and part of the debate as you go forward. I
would also imagine there probably is a fourth alternative if
you talk to the parties and reach for it.
Senator Carper. Dr. Robinson.
Ms. Robinson. This is also a serious case of it depends. It
really does depend on the mandate in question whether or not
you need States and localities and the private sector to be
putting forth their own resources in order to effectively
administer the mandate. That is always a serious question, and
sometimes there is not an option to do nothing. That
information exists about issues that the legislation is
addressing. Congress has made that determination, so at that
point their question is, how are we going to do it, and whether
or not it involves a mandate.
I am sure that is the universe. It is almost tautological
to say it is the universe, and I think it is. But the choice of
alternatives depends on the mandate in question.
Senator Carper. Thanks. My thanks to each of you.
Senator Voinovich. If there are no further questions, we
would like to thank you very much for being here today, and
there will be some questions from the Members of this
Subcommittee in writing, and we would appreciate your
responding to them. We will leave the record open for that.
And again, this has been quite illuminating, and I will be
working with Senator Carper to see if there are some things
that we can do to improve upon this legislation or decide to
let it continue to go as it is.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Graham. Thank you.
Ms. Williams. Thank you.
Ms. Robinson. Thank you.
Senator Voinovich. Dr. Graham, if you could do that for me,
I would be grateful, on the safe Drinking Water.
Mr. Graham. We will look into it.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
We will get started with our second panel. We have with us
today Delegate John Hurson from Montgomery County, Maryland,
who is testifying here on behalf of the National Conference of
State Legislatures. We are very glad that you are here today.
Commissioner Colleen Landkamer from Blue Earth County,
Minnesota, representing the National Association of Counties,
NACO.
And Council Member Nick Licata from Seattle, Washington,
representing the National League of Cities.
We thank you both for being here, and Mr. Licata for coming
a long distance to testify here today. As I mentioned to the
other witnesses, we would like you, if possible, to limit your
testimony to 5 minutes. Be assured that your testimony will be
in the record. We will proceed with Delegate Hurson.
Senator Carper. Mr. Chairman, before you proceed, as you
all know, we have a number of hearings that are going on at the
same time. We have a hearing in my Banking Committee on
Terrorism Risk Reinsurance, and I am going to have to slip out
in just a moment. I apologize for that. We have not figured out
how to clone us yet and we are still looking. [Laughter.]
Thank you. Thanks for being here.
Senator Voinovich. I would just like to explain to the
witnesses too. This is a Subcommittee hearing. It is a subject
that I am very interested in, and so is Senator Carper and so
are the Members of the Subcommittee. But you ought to know that
I could be at three different places right now and justify my
presence at each one of them. So it makes it difficult. I think
one of our problems here in the Senate is a lot of us are very
busy with lots of committees, and so often we like to be at
hearings and we just cannot make them because in my case there
are a couple other things that I could be at, but I am here,
because I am the Chairman of the Subcommittee.
My first year in the Senate, I was on five committees at
the time, and we were trying to figure out how to be in four or
five different places at once, and we created these cardboard
cutouts of me, and we would position them at the different
hearings. And it worked for a while, but people started saying
I seemed stiff. [Laughter.]
So we gave that up.
I want to, I am sure on behalf of everyone here, to thank
both of you for being here because UMRA is a very important
subject and we want to thank you for paying as much attention
as you do to it.
TESTIMONY OF HON. JOHN HURSON,\1\ DELEGATE, MARYLAND HOUSE OF
DELEGATES, AND PRESIDENT, NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE
LEGISLATURES
Mr. Hurson. Chairman Voinovich, Senator Carper, I am John
Hurson, President of the National Conference of State
Legislatures and a member of the Maryland House of Delegates. I
appear before you on behalf of NCSL, a bipartisan organization
representing the 50 State legislatures and the legislatures of
our Nation's commonwealths, territories, possessions and the
District of Columbia. Thank you for the opportunity to testify
before you today about UMRA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your
efforts and leadership as Governor of Ohio that helped UMRA
become a reality a decade ago and for your continued commitment
in the U.S. Senate to review how it is working.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Hurson appears in the Appendix on
page 00.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My presentation today will highlight the effectiveness and
limitations of UMRA, the impact of those limitations on State
budgets and the need for substantive and technical changes to
UMRA. I would like to request that a copy of NCSL's March 10,
2005 Mandate Monitor be submitted for the record to accompany
my testimony.
Senator Voinovich. Without objection.
Mr. Hurson. NCSL applauds the success of UMRA and the work
of the Congressional Budget Office in particular in bringing
attention to the fiscal effects of Federal legislation on State
and local governments, improving Federal accountability and
enhancing consultation.
CBO's recent report which identifies five laws that crossed
UMRA's threshold speaks loudly for its effectiveness.\1\ The
hundreds of fiscal analyses completed by CBO show a commitment
to carry out the spirit and letter of the law. Both of these
facts, however, mask some of the statute's shortcomings that
NCSL urges you to address.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The CBO's report entitled ``A Review fo CBO's Activities in
2004 Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act,'' March 2005, appears in
the Appendix on page 00.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
UMRA is limited, and I believe the GAO's May 2004 report to
you concluded the same thing. As a result, much is slipping
under UMRA's radar and intensifying pressures on State budgets.
NCSL has identified a $51 billion cost shift in Federal funding
to States for fiscal years 2004 and 2005 collectively.
Senator Voinovich. Fifty-one billion?
Mr. Hurson. Fifty-one billion, 5 percent of States' general
revenue funds annually. And the cost shift continues and will
likely grow in fiscal year 2006.
Mr. Chairman, legislators view mandates more expansively
than UMRA's definition. We believe there are mandates when the
Federal Government, for instance, establishes direct Federal
orders without sufficient funding to pay for their
implementation, or establishes a new condition of grant aid, or
reduces the Federal match rate or administrative funds
available without a reduction in requirements. It may be a
mandate to compel coverage of certain populations under a
current program without providing full or adequate funding for
this coverage, or a mandate occurs when we create under funded
national expectations.
To illustrate our concerns our written testimony provides
examples of provisions contained in three bills enacted during
the 108th Congress that were not considered intergovernmental
mandates under UMRA, but did create significant cost shift to
the States. This includes an excise tax on vaccines, under
funding IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act,
and provisions in the Medicare prescription drug program.
I would like to spend the remainder of my time, however,
not focusing on the past, but on the future of UMRA. We seek
your support to strengthen UMRA. This hearing, as well as the
work of GAO, is an excellent start. We suggest that Members of
this Subcommittee sit down with legislators, governors and
county and city officials to develop broader protections to
States and localities against these cost shifts. Specifically,
NCSL encourages the Congress to examine the definitions of
UMRA. Too many mandates are falling outside of UMRA's review.
The biggest example for our members is the No Child Left
Behind Act. We believe Congress should revisit how UMRA treats
entitlement and mandatory spending, in particular Medicaid.
Most changes made on Capitol Hill to the Medicaid program--
which I know in Maryland constitutes approximately 17 percent
of State expenditures--affect State spending. The cost of these
changes, direct or indirect, need to be recognized. States do
not always have the flexibility to absorb these costs.
Congress should establish greater Executive Branch
consultation. CBO does a great job, but we do not receive the
same level of consultation or information from Federal
departments or the Joint Committee on Taxation.
Congress should consider the cumulative impact of mandates
and consider developing a look-back process.
Congress should support Section 403 of the fiscal year 2006
Senate Budget resolutions, which strengthens the existing point
of order against legislation imposing unfunded Federal mandates
by requiring 60 votes to waive the point of order.
Mr. Chairman, in closing I would like to add that NCSL
remains steadfast in its resolve to work with Federal
policymakers to reduce the Federal deficit and to maintain
critical programs. Controlling the deficit is a daunting task
involving difficult choices, many of which involve our
intergovernmental partnership.
We recognize that the pressures on the Federal budget
promote a tendency to seek the accomplishment of national goals
through Federal mandates on State and local governments.
However, NCSL is encouraged that you and other Federal
lawmakers have recognized the difficulties posed by the cost
shifts to States, and we look forward to working with you on
this important issue.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I would be
happy to answer any questions.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much. It was great
testimony.
Mr. Hurson. Thank you.
Senator Voinovich. Commissioner Landkamer.
TESTIMONY OF HON. COLLEEN LANDKAMER,\1\ COMMISSIONER, BLUE
EARTH COUNTY, MINNESOTA, AND FIRST VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES
Ms. Landkamer. Chairman Voinovich, I want to thank you for
the leadership you have shown on this. You are really making a
difference on such a critical important issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Landkamer appears in the Appendix
on page 00.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am Colleen Landkamer. I am a County Commissioner from
Blue Earth County, Minnesota, and I am proud to serve as First
Vice President of the National Association of Counties and to
testify before you today on our decade of experience with
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
I would like to submit for the record a copy of a recent
snapshot survey on unfunded mandates that was conducted by the
National Association of Counties.\2\ This survey includes
information that in Blue Earth County, Minnesota over the past
3 years, it shows that we have spent the following for every
family of four. For every family of four we have spent $8 to
comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and another $8
for the Help America Vote Act. For every family of four we have
spent $3 to comply with the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act. For every family of four we have spent $11
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and for every
family of four we have spent more than $26 to comply with the
Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The survey entitled ``Unfunded Mandates: A Snapshot Survey,''
March 2005, appears in the Appendix on page 00.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, this may not be too much to spend to ensure that our
public buildings and transportation systems are accessible, or
to purchase new voting equipment, or to ensure the privacy of
health information or safe drinking water. However, the costs
continue to add up. If the examples highlighted in this survey
are extrapolated across the entire Nation, then counties have
spent at least $40 billion since fiscal year 2003 to comply
with just a few major unfunded mandates, and far more than
that, to comply with all of the Federal mandates.
Mr. Chairman, I was with you in the Rose Garden when the
Unfunded Mandate Reform Act was signed into law. We applauded
it then and we still do today. Unfortunately, many of the
unfunded mandates continue to be enacted without heightened
scrutiny. The following 10 loopholes in the Act are explained
in further detail in my written testimony, but let me briefly
go through the 10.
First. It identifies only the anticipated cost of proposed
new mandates, not the actual cost.
Second. It dismisses the cost of mandates that enforce a
constitutional right and provide for the national security. For
example, counties administer elections and ensure the safety of
our citizens. However, the importance of these responsibilities
should not get the Federal Government off the hook in paying
its share.
Third. It excludes grant conditions, even though local
governments rarely have the chance to opt out.
Fourth. It does not address the costs that State and local
governments bear because the Federal Government has failed to
address a national problem such as uncompensated health care,
the costs of which are skyrocketing.
Fifth. Agencies have inconsistent interpretations of their
responsibilities under the Act.
Sixth. It does not apply to mandates on an appropriations
bill or rules that are issued by an independent agency.
Seventh. Congress can satisfy the Act by authorizing funds
for a program even if these funds are not appropriated.
Eighth. It excludes Federal legislation that indirectly
reduces State and local tax bases or drives up costs.
Ninth. A mandate that costs a single jurisdiction tens of
millions of dollars would still be considered de minimis if it
fails to meet the nationwide threshold specified by the Act.
Tenth. It is not surprising that the unfunded mandate point
of order has never been raised in the Senate since it only
takes 50 votes to override. We support the provision of the
Senate budget resolution that would increase this threshold to
60, and view it as a first step toward strengthening the Act.
I would like to highlight one mandate that is creating
challenges for my county, Blue Earth County, and counties
across this Nation. The Help America Vote Act requires counties
to purchase new voting equipment by the end of this year. The
Federal Government was supposed to issue standards for this
equipment 2 years ago, and has not, leaving counties uncertain
about when we will be able to comply.
Now, counties are committed to guaranteeing access to the
polls and ensuring the integrity of the vote, and to make
certain that we are purchasing the right equipment, it is
critical for the Federal Government to release those standards
and give counties more time to meet those deadlines. The
deadline is the 1st of January and there is not enough time.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to share the
views of the National Association of Counties. I look forward
to working with you to strengthen and close loopholes in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
This concludes my testimony and I am ready to answer
questions. Thank you.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much. Mr. Licata.
TESTIMONY OF HON. NICK LICATA,\1\ CITY COUNCIL MEMBER, SEATTLE,
WASHINGTON, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES
Mr. Licata. Thank you, Chairman Voinovich and Senator
Coburn, for the opportunity to speak to you today. I am Nick
Licata, a City Council member from Seattle, Washington, and I
am here to testify on behalf of the National League of Cities
about how federally funded mandates financially squeeze
municipalities and often hinder our ability to provide services
to our residents. Please note that my extensive written remarks
have been submitted for inclusion in the Congressional Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Licata appears in the Appendix on
page 00.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before I begin my remarks, I would also like to thank the
Senator from Ohio for examining unfunded mandates and, in
particular, for requesting the GAO study of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act.
Now, as early as 1991, NLC adopted as policy the position
that Federal mandates that imposed direct costs must be
accompanied by adequate Federal funding. Local governments
nationwide recognized the passage of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act, UMRA, in 1995 the key partnership tool with the
Federal Government.
Ten years later, America's cities and towns are financially
burdened by unfunded mandates and preemptions of State or local
authority in some form. Some quick examples are the No Child
Left Behind Act, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act,
Federal tax reform, Internet tax, and environmental
regulations.
As recently as last night, the House Committee on Energy
and Commerce voted to pass a multi-billion unfunded mandate to
local governments. It did that when it rejected an amendment to
strike a provision from the energy bill forcing local
governments to clean up water contaminated by the gas additive
MTBE. In the last Congress, there were also legislative
proposals to require local governments to enforce civil
immigration laws, essentially a Federal function, or risk the
denial of reimbursement from the Federal Government.
Now, let me share with you what is happening in Seattle as
a result of homeland security, which has the unintended
consequence of an unfunded mandate. Our taxpayers and public
utility ratepayers have picked up more than half the costs
emanating from homeland security mandates and guidelines. Since
September 11, 2001, they have paid out close to $46 million, or
53 percent of the total costs. I am prepared to answer in
detail the findings of a report prepared by our city auditor,
and this document is included in Appendix A of this testimony.
And I believe this is the first and maybe the only concluded
study of homeland security unfunded mandate costs in
municipalities across the country.
Briefly, there are three factors that contribute to the
federally unfunded homeland security costs. They are as
follows:
In order to adequately protect our citizens, the city
complies with the post-September 11 guidelines from the Federal
Government, regulatory agencies, and professional
organizations. There are no Federal grants available to cover
these costs.
Second, in order to provide our heightened security
measures, additional ongoing staffing for homeland security
must be hired. Seattle has spent close to $18 million since
September 11 for which there were no Federal grants available.
And, third, in order to conduct vulnerability assessments
of our city's operations and critical infrastructure, eight of
our city departments indicated they have unmet infrastructure
needs because the grants from Federal agencies, including the
Department of Homeland Security and the Environmental
Protection Agency, restrict the city's flexibility.
Please keep in mind that during this time Seattle has spent
an additional $46 million unexpected security costs since
September 11, we have cut our local budget by over $100 million
due to the downturn in the national economy. As a result,
services have been reduced to our residents. And Seattle is not
alone in this situation. I have attended a number of NLC
meetings and talked to representatives from municipalities
across the country, and the same story is repeated again and
again in city after city.
I and other municipal elected officials believe that the
GAO, the CBO, and other reports have confirmed that the
financial threshold exemptions under UMRA disguise an accurate
assessment of unfunded mandates. And let me conclude by
identifying four NLC proposals for addressing this problem.
Amend UMRA to increase to 60 the number of Senate votes it
takes to enact legislation that imposes unfunded Federal
mandates. The State and Local Government Association sent a
letter to the conferencees on the budget resolution supporting
a supermajority in the U.S. Senate to override an unfunded
mandate point of order.
Second, Congress should not allow any Federal statutes to
preempt a local law unless the Federal law specifically states
there is such a conflict.
Third, Congress should reconsider the threshold amount
established in UMRA. While the $50 million threshold, adjusted
for inflation annually, may seem low by Congress' estimate, its
cumulative effect damages the fiscal health of our
municipalities.
And, last, NLC would like Congress to enact clear and
unequivocal language that mandates that Federal agencies
consult with State, local municipalities, and local government
officials in the development of the proposed rules.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much. There seems to be a
consensus here among the witnesses about the state of unfunded
mandates relief legislation. [Laughter.]
And before I forget, I would challenge the organizations to
get together and come back to me and this Subcommittee with a
consensus on what it is that you folks think we need to get
done. And I assure you that if you do that, all of you--in
other words, I know that the National Governors' Association
wanted to be here. They are not here. They are very interested
in this issue. The U.S. Conference of Mayors I know is very
interested in this. I have talked to Mayor Plasquellic. He is
very interested in this. And I think it would be really good if
you put together a little task force and sat down and you got
your respective reports and just see how they kind of coincide
with each other, and then come back here with your priorities
in terms of what things you think are going to make the most
difference in terms of our improving this legislation. Which
leads to my first question: What is it you think would be the
No. 1 issue that we need to deal with?
I am pleased the budget includes a program to reverse the
point of order. I applaud that provision of the bill. However,
some of us are going to have some other problems with the
budget. But I can tell you that the budget enforcement
mechanisms that I worked very hard to get into that budget,
plus Senator Gregg's going along with the 60 votes, are very
important things to me and will come into my consideration when
they finally get out of conference committee.
So who wants to start?
Mr. Licata. Well, I will jump in and say that the $50
million threshold, I think, is one of the critical elements.
That is in our estimation too high and that we need to lower
that threshold.
Also, communication is critical. The Federal agencies need
to talk to local officials about these rules. Without the
communication, often we are in the dark, and we only find out
at the last moment.
Senator Voinovich. You heard me ask the question of John
Graham about what procedure is in place to get the input of
State and local governments, and I saw some heads out there
saying they did not agree. So your opinion is that in terms of
regulations dealing with State and local governments, there is
no procedure in some of these agencies to sit down and talk to
you about the impact it is going to have?
Mr. Licata. Inconsistent and inadequate would be our
experience.
Mr. Hurson. I would echo that. I think that was a very good
question, Mr. Chairman. While CBO in particular has been
excellent in trying to work in terms of consultation, in
general it is sporadic. And I think that sort of came through
in the answer in terms of what kind of treatment we get from
agencies in terms of consultation. That is a very important and
significant point.
Senator Voinovich. OK. What else?
Ms. Landkamer. It is significant. There is no doubt about
that. And I think it is critical for us to come back to you and
talk about priorities, and we would love to do that.
Mr. Hurson. I am sure that NCSL will be committed to doing
that kind of task force. I think it is an excellent idea.
The one thing I would highlight is the first thing we
mentioned. We do think there are some definitional problems. We
are not getting all of the things we need covered by UMRA.
Things are slipping underneath the definitions, and we need to
tighten the definitions up in such a way that we truly do get
at some of these unfunded mandates. Particularly for States,
Medicaid is the Pac-Man of all these budgets. It is eating us
alive. It is eating the Federal Government alive. It is eating
State budgets alive. And very small changes in Medicaid
requirements have huge effects upon State budgets, and we do
not have the flexibility to absorb the costs because of
balanced budget requirements.
And again, it is a definitional issue, and I think if we
tightened up some of the definitions, we would be well on our
way to reforming UMRA in a good way.
Senator Voinovich. Again, in the definition area, I know
when we passed UMRA initially, there was a lot of debate about
the definition. But it's been 10 years now, and we can go back
and say, here is what has happened because certain things were
excluded or were not included.
Mr. Hurson. It is a good time to review it. It really is.
Ms. Landkamer. I agree with everything my colleagues have
said, and I do think the lookback is critical to see what
works, what the definitions are, and actually what the cost of
mandates have been, because I don't think we have looked at
that.
Senator Voinovich. Senator Coburn.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COBURN
Senator Coburn. Well, I would make note that we just passed
out of Committee S. 21, which should offer, especially Seattle,
some leverage in terms of homeland security and more of the
requirement for it to be on needs-based, risk-based, rather
than just on population-based granting. And I think you are
going to be pleased with that. We will see how the
appropriators do with that, but it is our hope that bill will
get through both the Senate and the House and get some common
sense into the funding.
My experience from the people I have dealt with in
Oklahoma, it is not that there is minimal consultation. Most of
the time there is no consultation from the Federal Government.
And when you find out what the rules are, it is when they are
published in the Federal Register, and you have 30 days to try
to mobilize and to change those.
And I would just tell you that I would tend to agree with
what you said. I would apologize for not being here. I am
trying to shuffle between three committees today. But common
sense is the thing that is lacking. It looks good up here, but
you have to remember this is a very small, hollow network that
does not rely on common sense and does not see the results of
things that are put out.
So I look forward to working with the Chairman on that. I
look forward to going through this to see what the GAO has said
and understand that and try to change it.
I think the threshold problem is more difficult than the
definitional problem for us in Congress, because I think
Federal agencies can get around the threshold problem, but I do
not think they will be able to get around the definitional
problems. And if we can tighten those up, I think they would be
great.
With that, I guess I don't really have any questions other
than to say I am sorry we have not done our job to make sure
you can do your job.
Mr. Licata. I would like to thank Senator Coburn and others
for the S. 21 bill. We really do appreciate the emphasis on
threat regarding homeland security, and I hope there is
successful passage of that legislation.
I again want to thank Chairman Voinovich and the other
Senators for their concern about this issue. I think we will
take up your challenge to get together and come back to you
with some solid proposals that we can all work together on and
do something about this problem.
Senator Coburn. Could I address Medicaid again?
Senator Voinovich. Certainly. I have some more questions,
too.
Senator Coburn. I just think the points you raised on
Medicaid is the prime example, and we need total reform in
Medicaid. But we do not need to reform it just here. We need
the input of the States as we make this a more flexible problem
for the States to decide how they care for the people in their
State. It is different in every State; the requirements and the
needs are different. And one of the things I am going to be
working on is to try to do that over the next couple of years,
at least build a consensus in terms of reforming Medicaid so
that it is more flexible, so that you have the ability to
really do what you want to do in the State to help those that
are depending on us.
Senator Voinovich. On the Medicaid issue, I have a little
difference of opinion than some of my colleagues. I voted
against the amendment to create the commission to study it
because I felt that what we were doing was limiting the
increase of Medicaid over the next 5-year period. And I was
assured by the former Governor of Utah, Mike Leavitt, that he
was negotiating with your respective organizations on five
major flexibilities that would give you some things that we
asked him to do when I was governor of the State of Ohio.
Mr. Hurson. Well, Secretary Leavitt actually is meeting
with us tomorrow on just those issues. He is speaking at NCSL's
Spring Forum here in Washington. So, yes, we are working with
him on all kinds of Medicaid reform.
Senator Voinovich. But I think that former Governor Leavitt
gets it. I know one of the things that I had in our State when
we reformed Medicaid, I wanted to charge a fee for Medicaid,
and they said you cannot do that. And there are a lot of small
provisions there that we could do, and it is amazing that a lot
of our health clinics throughout the State of Ohio today have a
sliding scale. Somebody comes in, they find out what their
income is, and there is a sliding scale and the recipients pay
according to their ability. But you are hamstrung with so many
of these regulations that you are getting money out of DC.
Mr. Hurson. Mr. Chairman, that is absolutely true. In the
State legislature I am the Chairman of our Health Committee,
and I will tell you that we are looking very closely at what
federally qualified health clinics can do and really using them
more as a safety net. But the thing with Medicaid is that it is
a partnership. We have to do this together. It is a situation
where it has to be reformed. If we are ever going to solve the
deficit at the Federal level, and in terms of the State
budgets, it has got to be a partnership. But we know it has to
be reformed. You talk about the clinics. They are the answer,
in my opinion, about how we can go about creating a new system
of health care that is not bound by all these rules and bound
by all these controls, because what we are trying to do is get
health services to people and not be bound by a lot of rules. I
think we can find a way to do that in a much less expensive way
if we work together.
Senator Coburn. Mr. Chairman, just to roll on the Medicaid,
right now Medicare and Medicaid dictate health care in America.
Health care does not dictate Medicaid and Medicare. It is
exactly backwards. We are going to spend $2.3 trillion this
year in our economy--that is close to 18 percent of our GDP--on
health care. That is 40 percent more than any Nation in the
world does per capita. And one out of every three dollars we
spend does not help one person get well.
Certainly we can do it better, and if we do it better, we
are going to free $700 billion a year to use in other areas,
both at the State and the Federal level. And I am committed to
see that happens.
Now, that is a big task, but there is no prevention
incentive for providers. We do not pay them for prevention. We
pay them to treat acute disease and chronic disease. Prevention
will save us tons. Half of Medicare and Medicaid spending in
the year 2050 is going to be on diabetes alone. And diabetes
today is a preventable disease, and yet there is no leadership
at the Federal Government level in terms of prevention of that,
and colon cancer and all these other diseases that we know are
preventable.
So I believe--and I hope through my Subcommittee and your
Subcommittee that we are going to be able to discover some of
the areas where we can change this. And it is a burden on the
States, but it is not just a burden on the State Governments.
It is a burden on every business in your State.
Last month alone, 15,000 jobs were not created in this
country because of the sole cost of health care insurance for
individuals who would have been hired, many in Ohio, because
they cannot afford that premium so, therefore, they do not add
another person to the payroll even though they need it.
Senator Voinovich. I agree with you 100 percent, Senator
Coburn. I recall when I was governor we did really well with
job creation and, in fact, Ohio led the country in new
facilities and plant expansions. But my governor today is
contending with some things that I did not have to contend
with: Escalating health care costs that are just driving
businesses away. Natural gas costs have escalated
substantially, and you are all feeling it on the local level.
This litigation tornado that is cutting through our society is
raising our costs. The competition with China today in terms of
their currency and intellectual property rights. I mean, there
are a number of things that impact on your local lives. People
in the State are saying, well, governor, take care of it.
Governor Taft in Ohio, I feel sorry for him. There are just too
many factors beyond his control. He can change around the
direction in IT jobs, biomedical and all other high-tech jobs.
But on the basic things, if we do not do something on the
national level on some of these issues, they are finished. We
will see more and more jobs leave this country because of the
fact that businesses can no longer compete because of our
regulatory environment.
As I mentioned, you ought to look at the new ambient air
standards. No one is really getting it. I tried to get Clear
Skies passed here, and I did not get the kind of support that I
should have, I think, from State and local governments. And I
said the reason why is because you do not get it yet. But when
you get it, you are going to be really concerned about this
because it is going to impact negatively on your ability to
keep jobs, get businesses to expand, and get businesses to come
into your communities.
Senator Coburn. I would just add one comment. Almost 7
percent of the cost of health care today, 6.8 percent, is $130
billion worth of tests that doctors order every year that
patients do not need but doctors need. And that is directly
related to the tort system failure in this country. And we
could lower the cost tomorrow by 7 percent, health care across
the board in this country, if we just had malpractice reform in
this country.
Senator Voinovich. I would like to ask you a question about
something specifically. Some of you said that we have not used
UMRA, point of order in the Senate. But I was interested to
hear testimony that, in fact, Senators, at least their staffs,
check with CBO to find out whether or not this is an unfunded
mandate or not and that legislation is changed because of it or
amendments are made to try and alleviate that pressure on State
and local governments.
I will tell you that, without UMRA, we probably would not
have been able to stop last year, with the help of your
respective organizations, the Internet tax moratorium. And I
just want to point out that the bill will expire in 2007.
However, some States that are now turning high-speed Intenet
access will lose their ability to do so this year. Fortunately,
Ohio and Washington are grandfathered in and won't lose that
ability. But Michigan and Maryland will lose some revenue. Have
you looked at this issue at all?
Mr. Hurson. I cannot say that our State, but I know that
NCSL is very active on this issue, as you know. But we actually
list the ban as a mandate as well.
Let me just make one quick comment that I think is
important to State and local governments. This always happens
when you have a problem, but UMRA has done a lot of good
things. We think we are on the right road. The question now is
reanalyzing it after 10 years of experience and fixing things
that may not have been what we expected to happen. But,
generally speaking, it has been a very positive experience for
our organization and for States that we have something in place
that does the review.
As I said in my testimony, we think CBO has done a really
good job of making sure that a lot of laws are analyzed. So to
be positive, we are going in the right direction. We just need
to reform it.
Senator Voinovich. Well, we look forward to your
recommendations, and I am going to have my staff go through all
the reports and come back to me with their recommendation on
what their priorities are, and then what I will do is wait to
see from you what you think they are. And let's get the team
together. We have not really worked on anything for a long
time, but last year we got an Internet tax moratorium, and I
have said to Mayor Plasquellic and I have said to other leaders
of the organizations that you have unbelievable power. You have
unbelievable power. If you all work together, prioritize your
issues, and come to Congress on a bipartisan basis, you can
move mountains. But each of your groups individually have great
difficulty in doing that, and I think that is something that I
want to underscore. This might be a great issue to get the team
back together to talk about some other things that we ought to
be working on together.
I cannot do it here. Tom cannot do it over there. But, if
we have a legislative proposal up here and you folks are
lobbying for it together and on a bipartisan basis, you will
move mountains. You will make a difference.
So I am looking forward to working with you. Thank you very
much. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAUTENBERG
Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing.
When I arrived at the Senate 22 years ago, I discovered that my
desk had once been used by Harry Truman.
He has always been a hero to me because he wasn't afraid to tackle
a problem. He famously said, ``The Buck Stops Here.''
The Federal Government has been too quick to pass the buck to
States and local governments in the form of unfunded mandates like the
No Child Left Behind Act. This is wrong.
Congress should not order State and local governments to provide
programs without offering the resources to pay for them.
But we must be clear about what rally constitutes an ``unfunded
mandate.''
The Congressional Budget Office has determined that unfunded
mandates include an increase of the minimum wage, user fees for
customs, fees on tobacco products, and the Sarbanes-Oxley Corporate
Reform Act.
It's one thing to say we shouldn't order States to provide health
insurance for their citizens without providing the resources to do it--
or impose tough new requirements on schools without adequately funding
them.
But the idea that Congress should not be able to raise the minimum
wage, or balance the budget, or force big companies to protect
shareholders and consumers, I think is misguided.
Mr. Chairman, these issues take on new urgency this year because if
approved, this year's budget would demand a new 60-vote point of order
to pass an unfunded mandate.
That means 60 votes to increase the minimum wage . . . 60 votes to
discourage young people from smoking--60 votes to enforce corporate
accounting standards.
So I say to my colleagues: We need to be very careful about what we
are doing here.
Mr. Chairman, it isn't just my priorities that would be endangered.
Some on the other side are engaged in a misguided attempt to cut
Medicaid, for example. Under current law, that could be an unfunded
mandate as well.
We should combat real unfunded mandates without hampering the
Senate's proper business.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]